AuthorTopic: . (Read 2586 times)

Ironically jsut tonite I went to see former Attorney General Edwin Meese speak and he talked about Kennedy in two decisions referencing foreign courts. His speech was pretty b*llshitty at parts, but at other times he made some valid points, though I gave him no points for that part of his speech.

The Supreme Court is suppose to use our consitution to decide if something is legal or a right or not and who can make what law and who cant. They are suppose to interput our constitution, not use that someone else thinks to justify their own personal opinions. The personal opinions of people should not matter (in most cases, yes the judges must decide what is say cruel and unsual but that is explicitly written in the constitution), the opinion of the judge or any foreign judge should not matter. Everything they need is in the constitution, not what some non-American said or thinks.

Just because some Chinese judical expert believes there is no fundamental right to have an abortion, that does not mean that should be used to justify our supreme court ruling against allowing abortions.

The Supreme Court is suppose to use our consitution to decide if something is legal or a right or not and who can make what law and who cant. They are suppose to interput our constitution, not use that someone else thinks to justify their own personal opinions. The personal opinions of people should not matter (in most cases, yes the judges must decide what is say cruel and unsual but that is explicitly written in the constitution), the opinion of the judge or any foreign judge should not matter. Everything they need is in the constitution, not what some non-American said or thinks.

Just because some Chinese judical expert believes there is no fundamental right to have an abortion, that does not mean that should be used to justify our supreme court ruling against allowing abortions.

You say ", yes the judges must decide what is say cruel and unsual but that is explicitly written in the constitution)." All Supreme Court rulings are based on something in the constitution- for example Lawrence which said a statute outlawing same sex sodomy was unconstitutional was based on the clause in the 14th amendment that says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Kennedy focused one word liberty in there, and when trying to decide if to right to intimate relations with another consenting adult is such a fundamental right to be covered by liberty, he cited along with copious other things, NOT relied on another countries decision. If you really dislike Kennedy opinion just think of the case as being decided by O'Conners opinion, that because the statute only banned gay sodomy, not heterosexual sodomy, gays were "denied to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"-the second part of the clause from the 14th amendment earlier quoted.

Conseratives are naive to think only liberals go beyond the mere words of the Constitution. Get this, convseratives do it all the time too. For example, Conseratives read the 11th amendment to say a citizen can't sue his own state, when the amendment clearly says it only applies to citizens of another state suing that state-why would conseratives like Scalia vary from the text of the Constitution and originalism-because it suits their policy goals. I think you are being very naive if you think you can tell somebody to adminster the law without using any of their world perspective influence how they adminster it.. Not possible-thats common sense.

I never said I disagreed with Kennedy's decision in that case, just that I believe what foreigners believe about rights should have no bearing on what the supreme court considers our rights. I agree with the O Conner piece.

Sure consertatives might forgo their originalism ideology in order to advance their own personal goals, and I do not support that. Many consertatives did not like liberal government spending and promised to lower spending when they got into office -- yet that surely hasnt happened. Instead the spending is now on programs consertatives what. Consertatives are not always good.

However to say someone can not adminster the law without using any of their world perspective influence is wrong. If our judges never traveled overseas, read or learned about foreign judical decisions, I would still be sure they would be able to do their jobs well because what they need, the constitution, is right here. I dont care whats considered fair or right in China, Germany, or anywhere else. I care about what our constitution says and what Americans believe.

I should have clarified what I meant by world perspective because we are talking about foreign opinions, I didn't mean international experiences, I meant their morals, biases, and generally philosphic attitude towards life. I think its impossible to ask somebody to adminster laws and not let those things affect how they adminster it. I agree its possible to ask people to adminster the law and not let their international experience affect how they adminster it, especially if they have low levels international experience.

Part of what I meant was what if they had no international experience, including knowledge of what foreign judges think about values and rights. If someone doesnt know any foreign opinions, they can still be an excellent judge. Knowing foreign opinions of foreign legal experts is not needed, nor should be play a part. The Supreme Court is our court which rules and affects our lives. Because some French judges think the death penelty is cruel and unusual does not mean we should. Because some Chinese legal experts think privacy does not include a right to an abortion, that does not mean we should adopt the same view. They should be taken with a grain a salt. Our past common laws, our constitution, etc should play a role, not anything foreign to the US. It doesnt matter who does it, consertative or liberal, I think it is wrong.